Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Scientific Correspondence
  • Published:

Why biodiversity surveys are good value

Abstract

Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity obliges contracting parties to establish protected areas for conservation. This can be achieved in smaller networks of reserves if their design is based on how well different sites complement one another biologically, rather than on more commonly used criteria, such as species richness or simple availability for acquisition1,2. However, this increase in efficiency3 requires species lists for each candidate site, and obtaining such data can be expensive; for example, a detailed survey of five taxa across 15,000 km2 of forest in Uganda took nearly 100 person-years and cost about US$1 million4,5. Here we ask whether investing in such surveys makes economic sense, or whether conservation agencies would be better advised to continue following more traditional reserve selection procedures, at the cost of having to conserve larger reserve networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Trade-off in selecting protected areas.

References

  1. Pressey, R. L. Conserv. Biol. 8, 662–668 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Williams, P. H. et al. Conserv. Biol. 10, 155–174 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pressey, R. L. & Nicholls, A. O. Biol. Conserv. 50, 199–218 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Howard, P. C., Davenport, T. & Kigenyi, F. Oryx 31, 253–264 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Howard, P. C. et al. Nature 394, 472–475 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Balmford, A., Jayasuriya, A. H. M. & Green, M. J. B. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1571–1575 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burbidge, A. A. in Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis (eds Margules, C. R. &Austin, M. P.) 3-6 (CSIRO, Canberra, 1991).

  9. Balmford, A., Mace, G. M. &Ginsberg, J. R. in Conservation in a Changing World (eds Mace, G. M., Balmford, A. &Ginsberg, J. R.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).

  10. Soulé, M. E. & Sanjayan, M. A. Science 279, 2060–2061 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Leader-Williams, N. & Albon, S. D. Nature 336, 533–535 (1988).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. James, A. N., Green, M. J. &Paine, J. R. Financial Indicators for Biological Diversity Conservation: A Global Analysis of Protected Area Investment (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, 1997).

  13. Anon Oryx 24, 67 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Anon Parks 2, 52 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nature Conservancy Parks in Peril Source Book (The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 1995).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balmford, A., Gaston, K. Why biodiversity surveys are good value. Nature 398, 204–205 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/18339

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/18339

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing